Skip to main content

About your Search

20130215
20130215
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
, your thoughts on this. i mean, isn't this harry reid's fault? harry had a chance to change the rules of the senate and he was too nice to mitch mcconnell and now look what we've got. there's probably more to come. your thoughts. >> i suppose so, though i remember not very long ago when we were all suffering under the george w. bush administration and there was a real fear that without the filibuster then george bush would have been able to put some of his very radical extremists on the bench and push through more of his agenda. so i understand the reticence to kind of unleash the nuclear option. and you know, i don't think you can necessarily blame harry reid for the unprecedented not just obstructionism but kind of paranoid lunacy of this new crop of senators who, you know, before i think we used to see this sort of incredibly paranoid mccarthyite apocalyptic view of american foreign policy among some of the characters in the house -- >> doesn't that make the case for why harry should have done, this because of the ted cruzes of the world and the tea parties of the world? they're tr
harry reid suggested it's pure politics. >> i guess to be able to run for the senate as a republican in most places of the country, you need to have a resume that says, i help filibuster one of president's nominees. maybe that helps. maybe that keeps the tea party guy from running against you. but this should not be politics. >> senator john mccain's response to politics, you played politics, too. >> in 1989 they filibustered or basically stopped him from coming to the floor of the senate. we didn't have a secretary of defense for three months. it didn't seem to bother harry reid or carl levin at the time. >> i want to bring in david nak can amura. >> hi, chris. >> what happened here? did the president misread how this was going to be? >> this has been something that he's dealt with for the past couple years. the white house thinks that republicans are purposefully trying to sort of bottle up not only these higher level appointees but lower level judges. it's not that they didn't expect it. we got an e-mail yesterday from senior white house officials saying, take a deep breath. it's
. >> but wasn't it harry reid and the democrats who didn't want to do more about the filibuster for fear when the table turned they didn't have the option? >> we've seen from republicans when the tables turn they'll do anything they want it do and do it quickly in order to press their own agenda. so it is disappointing. but having said that, the republicans are now saying, oh, no, this isn't a filibuster, this is just slowing the process down. we're going to do it on our own timetable but we are going to do it. chuck hagel will be the secretary of defense. so it's just an immature, i think, silly power play on their part. they're going to approve him but they want to drag it out. and i think it may be -- it may be a prelude to what's going to come. >> speaking of this evenings dr out, the sequester, the republicans have put a plan in $110 billion in cuts. an article says speaker boehner really is a point where he has a you-first attitude towards democrats and republicans. he wants to see what the democrats and president will put forth because of the hard-fought battles he's faced with his own
comes up at the end of the month? >> listen if harry reid wanted to bring it up he could cancel a vacation and come in next week if he wanted. the real easy answer is immediately provide the information. there is a history with the administration and the majority party not providing all of the information. they will provide a little bit here, a little bit there. hopefully you will forget about it. bottom line if they want to get this done, they should sit down with the concerned senators and actually provide the appropriate information. that is pretty simple. bill: this is what we heard. at least two of the speeches apparently were made, four, maybe five years ago that were not provided. was it intentional for him not to present these speeches because they thought it would be controversial? >> i'm not sure, certainly. but they are, people are aware of them and they need to be part of the entire package that is being presented. and the senators have an absolute right to get this information. bill: senator lindsey graham has been hot on this trail and his big issue is not having t
. rich? >> if it's such a good idea, harry reid is bring up a bill anytime he wants. two out of ten. >> jason? >> getting passed, four out of ten. >> maria? >> i'm going to say seven out ten. universal background checks. let's start with that. >> lz? >> i'm going seven out of ten as well. i agree i believe there's sensible things that are proven to be bipartisan that we can go through without saying get your guns out. >> our facebook friends. clets check. who's winning the war on guns? for matthew, gun makers and campaign fund-raisers and especially the lawyers. from justin, the left is understanding misunderstanding how pro-gun and rational the u.s. is. from david, the criminals. the law abiding americans argue who is right. keep the conversation going facebook.com or tweet me @carolcnn. "talk back" question for you, are there any hero athletes left? mine was earned in djibouti, africa, 2004. the battle of bataan, 1942. [ all ] fort benning, georgia, in 1999. [ male announcer ] usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation because it offers a superior level
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)